That's exactly what I said the day before, you pratically read my
mind :]
http://ejohn.org/blog/ultra-chaining-with-jquery/#comment-321336
What about making all methods 'wait' by default? That's what most
people expect anyway, people new to jQuery only find out the
animations run "in parallel" when they happen to casually chain
something with it. Then you could pass a 'skip' argument if you wanted
it to run immediatelly. Wouldn't be backwards compatible, but I wonder
how many apps would break because of this, haven't seen anyone
chaining animation methods.
- ricardo
On 20 out, 14:50, "Jeffrey Kretz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that the tricky part is that the hide() function (as in all
> animation functions) use a setInterval, but return the "this" object
> immediately.
>
> Ohhh. I have an idea.
>
> What if the wait() function set a flag in the object saying this object is
> waiting for an animation to finish.
>
> Then, any subsequent jQuery.fn methods that are called get added to a queue
> to be executed after the animation is finished.
>
> Once the animation is done, the wait flag is turned off and jQuery.fn
> methods are executed immediately as usual.
>
> So it would look like this:
>
> jQuery("div").hide("slow")
> .wait()
> .addClass("done")
> .find("span")
> .addClass("done")
> .end()
> .show("slow")
> .wait()
> .removeClass("done")
> .find("span")
> .removeClass("done");
>
> JK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>
> Behalf Of nikomomo
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 1:01 AM
> To: jQuery Development
> Subject: [jquery-dev] Re: Ultra-Chaining with jQuery
>
> First, you can do that with the callback parameter.
>
> jQuery("div").hide("slow")
> .wait()
> .addClass("done")
> .find("span")
> .addClass("done")
> .end()
> .show("slow", function() {
> $(this).removeClass("done");
> })
>
> But to create a wait() function, I think you have to create a lock/
> semaphore (a simple counter), incremented in jQuery.anime (or anything
> that create a timer callback?), decremented at the end of the anime,
> and tested in the wait() function.
>
> On 20 oct, 00:29, "Jeffrey Kretz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's an interesting idea -- personally I like this syntax a lot.
>
> > But because javascript isn't a true multithreading environment, I wonder
> if
> > this would be possible at all.
>
> > It's not like the wait() function can detect for the existence of an
> > animation, pause execution until the animation is done, and only then
> return
> > the "this" object.
>
> > Does anyone know if there's a way to create such behavior?
>
> > JK
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>
> > Behalf Of xwisdom
> > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 12:43 PM
> > To: jQuery Development
> > Subject: [jquery-dev] RE: Ultra-Chaining with jQuery
>
> > Sorry Guys but I could not find the thread mentioned on John's
> > website:http://ejohn.org/blog/ultra-chaining-with-jquery/
>
> > Anyway, the chaining system looks ok but rather than using a chain()
> > metod how about using a wait() method that would block or process
> > succeeding calls after the preceding call has been completed:
>
> > jQuery("div").hide("slow")
> > .wait()
> > .addClass("done")
> > .find("span")
> > .addClass("done")
> > .end()
> > .show("slow")
> > .wait()
> > .removeClass("done")
>
> > Just my 2cents
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
